A Systematic Literature Review of The Factors Influencing The Adoption of Autonomous Driving

Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-020-00961-4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A systematic literature review of the factors influencing

the adoption of autonomous driving
Mohamed Alawadhi1 • Jumah Almazrouie2 • Mohammed Kamil3 •
Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil3
Received: 12 December 2019 / Revised: 3 February 2020

The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and
Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2020
Abstract Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are the latest trend acceptance (consumer acceptance, marketing and adver-
in the automobile industry. Although the concept has tising, cost of AVs and trust). Stakeholders will need to
existed since the beginning of the last century, recent work on these four areas to ensure successful mass adop-
technological advancements have enabled the industry to tion of AVs and decrease the chance of failure. The paper
attempt mass introduction of driverless vehicles. This paper also recommends future research on these four categories
reviews the literature to explore those factors that influence and their 14 success factors to provide additional infor-
the successful adoption of AVs. Previous literature in the mation on how the government can adopt autonomous
field was gathered and analyzed using a categorization driving.
method to identify factors that are essential to the suc-
cessful adoption of AVs. A total of 14 factors. These fac- Keywords Autonomous vehicles Success factors
tors were identified from 85 articles published in various Autonomous technology Driverless vehicles Technology
journals such as: transportation research part A: policy and readiness Infrastructure readiness Legal readiness User
practice, rand corporation, yale journal of law and tech- acceptance
nology in the literature, which could be sorted into four
readiness categories: technology (vehicle technology,
safety and ethics), infrastructure (communication, tech- 1 Introduction
nology of roads and traffic signs and cost of infrastructure),
legal (liability, privacy and cybersecurity) and user Technology has pervaded the everyday lives of human
beings, while bringing the fourth industrial revolution in
manufacturing. Today, the term ‘‘autonomous technology’’
& Mohamed Alawadhi is prevalent in various industries; it involves transforming
U16101432@sharjah.ac.ae the capabilities of machinery and allowing it to play an
Jumah Almazrouie independent role. In the fields of computation and sensory
Jumah.almazrouie@daep.ae technology, the advancements have led to the emerging
Mohammed Kamil realization of autonomous vehicle (AV) development
mmohammed@sharjah.ac.ae (Campbell et al. 2010).
Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil As it transitioning from its use in manufacturing usage
kabdelmawgoud@sharjah.ac.ae to its application in vehicles, autonomous technology is at
1
Engineering Management Department, College of
the center of global research, with emphasis attributed to
Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE the need to reduce risk and increase reliability (Helle et al.
2
Projects Reliability Assurance Department, Dubai Aviation
2016; Pandey et al. 2018). With the maturity of AV tech-
Engineering Projects, Dubai, UAE nology, AVs hold the potential to drive change in the
3 everyday lives of individuals while transforming trans-
Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department, University
of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE portation standards. However, to achieve such a desired
123
transformation, the challenge is to bridge the gap through influencing the adoption of AVs. This paper identifies the
having a matured technology and community to accept factors for a successful adoption of autonomous driving.
such smart solutions. This can help automobile companies, manufacturers and
Transportation is considered as a means to prosperity for the government of the UAE to have a clear list of factors to
societies, although it poses some risks and comes with consider while adopting AVs on a massive scale. A sys-
external costs or externalities that are hidden and indirect, tematic review of previous literature is undertaken to
costs that are imposed on society such as traffic congestion, answer the research question, to identify the success factors
pollution, accidents and human casualties. Many studies in the adoption of AVs and then to reach conclusions.
have estimated these costs for human-driven vehicles
(Parry et al. 2007; Link et al. 2016). These costs are dif- 1.1 Research questions
ferent from the direct costs of owning and driving a vehi-
cle, such as the cost of fuel, vehicle maintenance, vehicle The present research seeks answers to the following
registration and parking. research question:
The literature perceives AV technology as having the
1. What are the key factors that influence the adoption of
potential to substantially reduce many of these existing
autonomous driving?
negative externalities. Anderson et al. (2016), have
explained that AVs are expected to reduce traffic conges-
tion by increasing road throughput capacity through more
efficient vehicle operation and by reducing vehicle crashes. 2 Literature review
Additionally, AVs are expected to reduce pollution by
enabling the use of alternative fuels, to decrease fuel A systematic literature review attempts to report the current
consumption by improving driving efficiency (Singh et al. state of knowledge in a specific area (Oliveira et al. 2017). It
2014), and to reduce accidents, as 90% of accidents are the involves the use of systematic procedures to gather reliable
result of human error (Morando et al. 2018), which will data (Cook et al. 1997; Brereton et al. 2007), which should
result in lives saved. be carried out using well-defined protocols to locate existing
AVs can also offer benefits such as increasing accessi- data, select them using specific criteria, evaluate them,
bility and mobility and even improving land use. The liter- analyze and synthesize them, and then report the findings.
ature does point out some disadvantages of AVs, but these The objective is to reach clear conclusions about what is and
disadvantages are believed to be largely outweighed by the what is not known in a particular sphere of knowledge (Cook
advantages (Bagloee et al. 2016). Also, Shladover (2018) et al. 1997; Tranfield et al. 2003). Thomé et al. (2016) argue
mentions that the basic concept behind AVs is to partially or that a systematic literature review itself performs important
fully replace human intervention with electronic and research and is not just a review of past research.
mechanical devices, thus making the transport driverless. The present research aims to find the answers to the
With the advancement of technology and the pace at which research question by undertaking a systematic review of
automobile industry is evolving, the topic of AVs is of great the existing literature on autonomous driving and AVs. A
interest to researchers, engineers, government bodies and systematic literature review identifies, selects and critically
industry experts (Brenner and Herrmann 2018). appraises previous research in such a manner as to answer a
Today, the usage of autonomous technology is wide- research question. The keywords used in the present
spread in vehicles, although it is restricted in the ways in research to search literature databases were ‘‘autonomous
which it is applied (Skeete 2018). These include assistive vehicles,’’ ‘‘evolution,’’ ‘‘classification,’’ ‘‘adoption fac-
parking, cruise control, emergency braking and sensor tors,’’ ‘‘barriers’’ and ‘‘challenges.’’
usage (Bloom et al. 2017). Apart from these, Davidson and Multiple electronic databases, including ScienceDirect,
Spinoulas (2015), identified that technologies such as cloud PUBMED, IEEE Xplore, SCOPUS, PROQUEST and
connect and cameras have played a positive role in EBSCO, were searched to identify articles using the key-
improving the overall performance which can be used in words. The articles gathered were then sorted using
AVs. The key challenge is the successful adoption of AVs inclusion and exclusion criteria. These criteria were
in the marketplace, such as in the United Arab Emirates developed to sort the articles and to decide whether or not
(UAE), because the UAE is driven on the principle of smart to include them in the review. The articles included were
innovation and smart technology as part of the smart no more than 10 years old, in the English language, peer-
government initiative (Al-Khouri 2012). reviewed and focused on factors influencing the adoption
AVs form a core component of autonomous trans- of AVs (as determined by the presence of one or more of
portation. To achieve the desired smart and safe transfor- the identified keywords in the article’s title, abstract or
mation, there is a need to identify the success factors keywords). A categorization method was used to sort the
123
data according to its relevance, and then articles were addition to the automobile companies, some governments
reviewed and conclusions reached. The data were catego- are also working toward the adoption of AVs.
rized in the following categories: Figure 1 shows the evolution of AVs as found in the
literature:
• Evolution of AVs
• Key components of AVs classification
2.2 Key components in AV classification
• Factors influencing the adoption of AVs
Based on the systematic sorting and categorization, a The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has estab-
review of the previous relevant literature was completed lished a classification system to assess the level of auton-
and is presented below. omy of driverless cars. In the SAE system, the level of
autonomy is classified on a scale from 0 to 5, where 0
2.1 Autonomous vehicles and their evolution means the car’s systems may issue warnings, but there is no
automatic control, and five means the car is automatic with
Pendleton et al. (2017), state that the idea of vehicle no human intervention required in any situation (SAE
automation was envisioned in 1918, and Shladover (2018), international 2018). Each level is briefly described below:
confirms that General Motors exhibited the first concept in
• Level 0: The car is totally controlled by the driver with
1939. Ross (2014), states that the technological develop-
no automatic intervention.
ments that led to modern day AVs had already begun decades
• Level 1: One aspect of the car is automatic.
ago, in 1948, when modern cruise control was invented. The
• Level 2: The car has the ability to control steering and
technology then kept evolving over the past 70 years, with
speed. Self-parking is an example of this level, in which
new milestones being reached along the way.
the driver still must control the steering.
Moreover, Ross (2014) concludes that the technological
• Level 3: The car can take full control in decision-
advances in the field of AVs have come through small steps
making, such as in overtaking slow-moving vehicles.
with the introduction and testing of features that collec-
• Level 4: The car is automated enough to be self-driven
tively have led to the eventual conception and introduction
in most situations, but if circumstances are not suitable,
of AVs. Google started a driverless car project in 2009 and
the driver can take control.
introduced such a car in 2010, which is also in the process
• Level 5: This is the maximum level of autonomy, in which
of evolution (Urmson 2016).
no driver is needed, and the car is driven robotically.
Automobile companies have been actively taking part in
research and development to gradually advance the AV’s Following are the key components found in the classi-
evolution process. Faisal et al. (2019) mention that Volvo fication of AVs:
tested its first AV in 2017 and plans to market it in 2021,
• Technology: The level of technology used is one of the
while BMW, Audi, Nissan and Mercedes-Benz are work-
main components by which AVs are classified.
ing to introduce their AVs in the market by 2020. In
Pendleton et Shladover Ross (2014) Urmson Faisal et al. (2019)
al. (2017) (2018) (2016)
The idea of General Modern cruise Google started Volvo tested its first AV
vehicle Motors control was a driverless car in 2017 and plans to
automation exhibited the invented in project in 2009 market it in 2021.
was envisioned first concept in 1948. and introduced
in 1918. 1939. such a car in BMW, Audi, Nissan &
2010. Mercedes-Benz working

to introduce their AVs in
the market by 2020.
Fig. 1 Evolution of AVs over the years
123
• Human intervention: The level of human intervention road detection for exceptional car navigation. Both active
needed in a car defines its classification and how much and passive sensors should be used to help derive infor-
autonomy it has. mation from the external environment that will subse-
• Circumstances: The circumstances in which a car is quently be interpreted by the road detection system
enabled to work automatically or with human interven- installed in the autonomous driving system (Mohamed
tion are also key components when classifying AVs. et al. 2018).
Moreover, Barnard et al. (2019), expressed in their
research that increased weather hazards are expected
2.3 Factors that influence the adoption
because of change in climate which affect autonomous
of autonomous driving
driving since AVs are sensitive to such extreme weather
conditions. In addition, AVs are being researched to make
Referenced to a KPMG (2018) study on autonomous
them use lesser energy as well as having less negative impact
driving readiness around the world, the following four
on environment. However, Barnard et al. (2019), stated that
readiness categories have been selected for this paper:
not much research has been done how extreme climate
technology, infrastructure, legal and user acceptance.
conditions can effect on the development and implementa-
tion of AVs. Barnard et al. (2019), also commented that more
2.3.1 Technology readiness
research should be undertaken to study the effects of extreme
weather conditions of AVs and how these can be handled
Technology advancement have been on the radar for
with addition of more features in AVs. Also, (Tian et al.
human development for decades. Autonomous driving and
2018), explained that since manual collection of test data is
its technologies are part of the transportation industry that
used for testing the AVs, the budgetary aspect becomes
serves humans daily. Moreover, technology readiness is
inherent since the number of test conditions increase which
considered vital for the success of autonomous driving. The
need to be considered while testing AVs. Besides, there can
following section shows vehicles technologies, safety and
be innumerable driving conditions like fog, rain and storm
ethics are being evaluated as part of the technology
which can lead to erroneous behavior of AVs and these
readiness effort in adopting autonomous driving.
driving conditions can lead to accidents. The researchers thus
developed and implemented a systematic tool for testing
2.3.1.1 Vehicle technology To ensure technology readi-
AVs to evaluate the erroneous behavior of AVs in such
ness, vehicle technology cannot be ignored. AVs require
varying driving conditions.
highly advanced technologies to be successful. According
Moreover, Kuutti et al. (2018), point out that autono-
to Stephan et al. (2016), AVs are supposed to perform tasks
mous vehicles’ knowledge consist of perception, planning
such as automatic braking, lane-keeping and adaptive
and control function to enable effective driving. An
cruise control while also imaging and detecting the area
instance is that just a few decimeters’ error can cause the
through which they move. The detection devices consist of
AV to shift on the wrong side of the street which can be the
a camera, radar, lidar and other sensors installed in AVs
reason of the accident for the vehicles or third parties like
that are tasked with the functions of continuously gener-
pedestrians. AVs also need to be robust where there are
ating data about the surroundings outside of the vehicle and
uncertain driving conditions are present like absence of
establishing a digital spatial map (Bimbraw 2015) while
road signs and markings which require high level of
also tracking other relevant technologies such as traffic
accuracy. The global positioning system (GPS) is a very
management systems (Goel et al. 2017). In addition to
common localization system which offers an easy solution,
detection devices, AVs also require the support of navi-
however it has its own limitations including poor reliability
gation tools such as the GPS and Galileo to determine the
and signal blockage. The recent research has been focused
position of the vehicle and surrounding objects (Güzel
on development of more advanced localization systems
2013; Zheng et al. 2019). Furthermore, Agunbiade et al.
using advanced sensors or on-board and off-board fusing
(2016) believe that to accomplish road detection success-
information (Van Brummelen et al. 2018).
fully, autonomous robots must be used to support vehicle
Fagnant, Kockelman and Bansal (2015), stated that as
navigation initiatives. Many researchers (Jiménez et al.
AVs are expected to be electrified the electric range for the
2016; Guo et al. 2019) have suggested techniques using
electric ranges is between 100 and 160 km (for example,
camera sensors, but while the outcomes have been suc-
Ford Focus and Chevrolet Spark), the expected charging
cessful, the sensors were found to be vulnerable to envi-
time to charge a completely drained battery is between 4
ronmental conditions of rain, sunlight, shadow and
and 7 h on 240 V charging devices. This can be a serious
intensity of light. For AVs to work effectively, a well-fitted
issue for electric vehicles compared to vehicles having an
vision system needs to be installed that promotes accurate
electric range of 330–424 km and a charge time of less
123
than 5 h (for example Tesla Model S). 480 V charging improving functional capabilities as well as other features
devices can charge bigger batteries in less than hour. Also, of AVs with several advanced prototypes already running
Ramanujam (2017), provided some examples of how an on streets. The challenge is still present to enable a guar-
AV can identify services needed and how it can perform anteed performance as well as safety under extreme and
those services. for example, the AV can identify the unexpected driving conditions. For example, the perfor-
depleted battery or low fuel level well in advance and can mance of AVs is still to be ensured in a complex and
provide command to drive to the nearest charging or fuel cluttered environment in which the interaction with second
station to get the AV charged or refueled. Other than this, or third-party traffic participants are required making AVs
the services of checking and getting tire air pressure, highly interactive and responsive to any unexpected situ-
alignment of tires, changing engine and brake oil, cleaning ation. Additionally, Schwarting et al. (2018), wrote that the
of AVs and other services can be self-identified by AV and AVs are required to respond in dynamic environments and
can self-drive to the nearest service provider for the need models and methods to react in unpredictable situa-
required services. Furthermore, Ayawli et al. (2018), tions as well as ensuring timely behavior in complex urban
introduced path planning for AVs which involves percep- scenarios. Accurate perception is required for informed
tion and detection of obstacles to reach the destinations decision-making and current state-of-the-art computer
safely as well as to achieve path planning and motion vision is still unable to achieve lowest error rates accept-
control. Real time intelligence is needed to be developed able. The recent approaches of integrating decision-mak-
which can sense and interpret information and take nec- ing, control and perception have shown increased AV
essary actions in order to achieve smooth navigation. The performance, however, it still needs to be improved. The
robots should perform the tasks in shortest time possible increasing popularity of machine learning techniques, the
with no human interventions. Based on the discussion AVs still face challenges in the fields of complex planning,
above vehicle technology can be considered as a factor that decision-making and performance. Also, Deb et al. (2017),
will help in adopting autonomous driving. did a quantitative online survey and 482 Participants
responded to it in the United States they were 273 males
2.3.1.2 Safety When deploying new technology to be and 209 females and their age range from 18 to 71 years
used by a human, user safety is always an important factor old. From the Reponses to the questions, it was found that
to consider (Karsh 2004). Given that autonomous driving is majority 65% of the participants had confidence that AVs
a new technology, safety is also considered an important implementation would improve the transportation a well as
factor in ensuring the deployment and usage of this tech- safety. The participants were not confident about crossing
nology. Morando et al. (2018), highlighted the need to roads when AVs were present on the roads. More than 55%
identify the number of miles through which an AV must be respondents agreed that AVs will be easy to interact with
tested to obtain statistically relevant data to demonstrate and 67% expected AVs to perform effectively. Based on
the vehicle’s safety. The vehicles need to be tested based the discussion above safety can be studied as a factor that
on statistically sound data before they can be allowed to be will support in adopting autonomous driving.
deployed on the roads. This can be a major constraint, since
the amount of testing required to collect the statistical data 2.3.1.3 Ethics Ethics is always a concern for humans
will be great (Koopman and Wagner 2017). Other safety when using new technology. Therefore, ethics must be
issues include the occupant’s minimal use of seatbelts and considered in the context of adopting autonomous driving
carelessness about pedestrians because of over-dependency and is an important factor when programming and instal-
on AVs (Taeihagh and Lim 2019). A guaranteed way to ling AV software. Adnan et al. (2018) mention that since
check the safety of an AV is to use logical reasoning, in the effect of vehicles on the environment and society is
which planned motions are checked to see whether they increasing, it is important to develop significant guidelines
comply with certain rules and axioms, such as those for- and laws for the AV systems to focus on human ethics and
mulated using higher-order logic (Pek et al. 2017). For values. In other words, systems must be planned to perform
instance, the safety of planned lane-change maneuvers can in a way that provides advantages to people and that is not
be examined (Schwammberger 2018), and the safety of restricted to fulfilling technical and functional objectives
following a vehicle can be judged (O’Kelly et al. 2017). To but focuses on solving ethical and social issues (Cunneen
ensure the safety of AVs, logical reasoning must be et al. 2020). Various scenarios have been penned to
adapted to new and previously unmodeled traffic scenarios examine the response of AVs in ethical dilemmas. Johnson
(Pek and Althoff 2019). (2017) describes a situation in which an AV is certain to
In addition, Schwarting et al. (2018), stated in their crash if it does not change lanes, but it cannot change lanes
research that perception, planning and development of AVs because this will endanger other vehicles or road users.
have seen many recent advances which helped in Evaluation of these types of scenarios has lodged engineers
123
in the role of configuring algorithms to assist AVs in that AVs will be powered by electricity and not fossil fuels
dealing with ethical dilemmas. (Litman 2014), which make the electrification of vehicles
The morality and ethics debates continue about the AV and battery solutions an important aspect of AV develop-
manufacturing companies as well as their employees ment (Hörl et al. 2016).
(Mordue et al. 2020). In a market-driven approach, the Another beneficial way for communication as Engelman
appropriate way to program AV and whether the users et al. (2017), suggested that an AV should have an
should be given control to select the programming options autonomous sensor which is configured to detect an
remains an important question (Gogoll and Müller 2017). unforeseen or unexpected road condition like water or
In the meantime, according to some critics, such matters snow on the road and to control the vehicle according to the
are not important since such dilemma inducing situations condition as well as providing signals to other vehicles
are very rare (Fried 2012). The risk assessment feature is before they reach the point to enable them to take neces-
important for drivers’ experience. For instance, the deci- sary measures to react to the condition. Thus, the vehicles
sion for changing the lane to save a pedestrian is an ethical communication skills should include identifying the situa-
decision whether to save the pedestrian or save the driver tions as well as communicating the same to other vehicles
(Goodall 2016). As discussed above ethics can be reflected to increase the collaboration and interaction. According to
as a factor that will help in adopting autonomous driving. the discussion above communication can be measured as a
factor that will support in adopting autonomous driving.
2.3.2 Infrastructure readiness
2.3.2.2 The technology of roads and traffic signs Up-
Road infrastructure improvement have continuously been grades to the technology of roads and traffic signs must be
essential for vehicle operations. Infrastructure readiness is considered in creating an infrastructure compatible with
considered fundamental to the success of AV adoption. The AVs. As autonomous driving becomes a new method to
following sections show that communication, technology commute, the technology of roads and traffic signs is also
of roads and traffic signs and the cost of infrastructure are an important factor to ensure the proper deployment and
being evaluated for infrastructure readiness for autonomous usage of this AV technology (Namazi et al. 2019). As
driving. stated by Tokody et al. (2018), AVs require the develop-
ment of a transport infrastructure that is different from
2.3.2.1 Communication One component of infrastructure classical infrastructure. Hence, another basic component of
readiness relates to communication systems. Adegoke et al. AVs is the intelligent transport infrastructure that would be
(2019), stated in their research that transport systems will required for their use (Latham and Nattrass 2019). Acci-
be more safer and sustainable with the integration of dents should be made impossible by improving the accu-
information communication technologies and transport racy of recognition software to enable AVs to read signs
networks. Daziano et al. (2017) explain that AVs utilize (Lengyel and Szalay 2018). Sparrow and Howard (2017)
communication and detection technologies to efficiently also mention that traffic lights, yield signs, street signs,
and safely navigate without the participation of humans. speed limit signs and other physical infrastructure will no
The need for navigation technology for AVs includes longer be necessary with the introduction of AVs, and these
combinations of self-driving navigation systems that learn physical signs will need to be replaced with digital versions
from onboard sensors and though vehicle-to-infrastructure in response to which cars will adjust their speeds auto-
(V2I) and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication sys- matically, stop or change directions and yield to other
tems that update navigation and crash-escape applications. vehicles approaching an intersection (Levin and Boyles
Furthermore, to facilitate the functioning of AVs in real 2015; Levin et al. 2016; Zohdy and Rakha 2016).
traffic, Ge et al. (2018), suggested that it is appropriate to Another technology of road mentioned is charging AVs
present beyond-line-of-sight information with the help of as Chen, Kockelman and Hanna (2016), explained there are
V2V and V2I communication. These modes are frequently two types of short range and long range charging Level II
grouped as vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication, (240 V charging) and Level III (480 V charging). Some
where X might also integrate additional traffic contributors, important factors for charging infrastructure needed to be
such as bicyclists or pedestrians. Infrastructure should be looked at include the locations of charging station, the
developed to encourage effective communication between impact of charging time on fleet size, the waiting times as
vehicles and infrastructure. well as managing trip demands. Referring to Steyn and
Since, AVs will be dependent on communication tech- Maina (2019), the road furniture like signage should be
nology (Xargay et al. 2012), there is a chance that AVs will given mush importance as well as the selection of adap-
become truly autonomous without communicating with tation aspects like speed limit systems and parking
external vehicles and infrastructure. Also, it is expected instructions. Changes in road pavement structure are not
123
mentioned. While, Duarte and Ratti (2018), mentioned not certain of what is legal and what is illegal in terms of its
visibility and consistency of road signage and there should use (Rosique et al. 2019). The following sections indicate
be lower variability in a number of parameters which will that issues related to policy and regulation, liability, pri-
increase the adoption of AVs like speed, following speeds vacy and cybersecurity are being evaluated in enhancing
and road width etc. The systems should enable efficient use legal readiness for adopting autonomous driving.
of road networks during nighttime. The engineers need to
come up with optimum design as well as maintenance 2.3.3.1 Policy and regulation When developing legal
plans to ensure lower variability. As discussed earlier the readiness, the first item that comes to mind is policy and
technology of roads and traffic signs can be considered as a regulation. Bansal and Kockelman (2017) point out that
factor that will encourage in adopting autonomous driving. policymakers, scholars and professionals need to make
certain decisions to help the future of AVs. Initially, poli-
2.3.2.3 Cost of infrastructure Upgrades and new com- cymakers must acknowledge the AV future to adjust the
ponents are needed for road infrastructure to be well-mat- present policies. Changes may be needed to solve regula-
ched with AV operation. These technology upgrades of tory problems even before the broad introduction of highly
infrastructure will be costly; thus, the cost of infrastructure or conditionally automated road vehicles. In terms of pol-
is an important factor to consider when adopting autono- icy and regulation, Barabás et al. (2017) indicate that
mous driving. Lytrivis et al. (2018) identify an inherent governments are currently relying on laws made for con-
need for infrastructure adaptations to be prepared for the ventional vehicles, While new laws are in process, and
gradual insertion of automated vehicles and to ensure uncertainties exist in the technology of AVs. Policies
uninterrupted, predictable, safe and efficient traffic flow. should be introduced to suit the new traffic regime (Nikitas
Updating infrastructure is a time-consuming and costly et al. 2019).
procedure and takes place at a slower pace than in-vehicle Moreover, Faisal et al. (2019), wrote in their research
automation developments. The infrastructure costs will that AV policy is mainly discussed on first, the avoidance
include building new infrastructure as well as upgrading of conflict between federal and state governments when
existing components that will become outdated with the formulating laws. Second, the jurisdiction of federal and
introduction of AVs. It is argued that infrastructure change state government. Third, negotiation between governments,
and upgrade should be based on a 30-year planning hori- industries and professionals on liability and privacy.
zon, and because of the huge costs involved, it is suggested Fourth, the standardization of technology. Fifth, the pri-
to focus on sections of roadways than attempting a ority of vehicles on roads. Fifth, the pricing to manage
wholesale transformation (Flemming et al. 2015). Other vehicles kilometers travelled (VKT). According to the
costs are also identified by Jadaan et al. (2017), that it will discussion above policy and regulation can be considered
be incurred in developing specialized methods, training as a factor that will support in adopting autonomous
expert personnel and deploying equipment required for driving.
operating and maintaining an infrastructure for the AV
system. Moreover, Chen et al. (2016), pointed out the cost 2.3.3.2 Liability The changes or adjustments that must
of infrastructure for charging AVs. Charging sites for Level be implemented in terms of liability are very important. For
II charging will have an estimated cost between USD 8000 example, a user cannot be blamed for a machine’s mistake,
to USD 18,000 including the hardware, material and labor although this could be the case in using AVs. Thus, liability
costs of installation whereas the annual maintenance costs is permanently an important factor to be considered.
will be minimal ranging between USD 25 to USD 50 per Apportioning liability will be an important factor in the use
year. On the other hand, Level III charging sites will incur of AVs and the implementation of autonomous driving.
costs between USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 with annual Taeihagh and Lim (2019) state that in many accidents with
maintenance costs ranging between USD 1000 to USD conventional vehicles the driver held some control over the
2000 per year. Based on the discussion above cost of vehicle and hence assumed the initial liability for the action
infrastructure can be considered as a factor that will help in of the vehicle. In an AV, however, an individual is not in
adopting autonomous driving. control, and thus all of the liability will be borne by the
AV, meaning accidents will prove a huge problem in the
2.3.3 Legal readiness product’s reliability and safety which might terminate this
technology. Third parties involved in the design and
Legal advancement is fundamental to the successful use of manufacturing of systems in AVs will face greater vul-
AVs. Currently, there is no clear regulation for AVs and nerability to lawsuits (Marchant and Lindor 2012; Geist-
their operation on the road. Thus, if this technology feld 2017). Riehl (2018) likewise stresses that AV crashes
becomes available, people may reject it because they are are unavoidable; therefore, courts need to identify the
123
factual and legal standards for defining liability. In relying invasive scenario i.e. image capture and highest was found
more on assessing the level of automation, the factual and for tracking of vehicles 85%. High discomfort levels were
legal analyses in these cases tend to be significantly dif- found with image storage 42%, analysis of specific inci-
ferent from current analyses. The increase in technology dents 36%, and continuous analysis 43%. The Uber
may increase the list of potential suspects and the devel- reviewing images were used for incident analysis. Based on
opment of laws, and liabilities may merge to specific sus- the discussion above privacy can be considered as a factor
pect categories. In a given crash it is expected that potential that will support in adopting autonomous driving.
suspects may include drivers, vehicle owners, data provi-
ders, manufacturers, and sensor suppliers, resulting in a 2.3.3.4 Cybersecurity Since AVs will be dependent on
liability that is split among them all. the internet and technology, there must be strict laws
Moreover, in Bloom et al. (2017), study they did a against cyberattacks and hackers to ensure safe autono-
survey to 302 participants of residents of cities having Uber mous driving and efficient use of AVs. AV’s using extre-
AV fleets as well as without them in order to identify their mely interconnected automated navigation systems will
perceptions of self-driving vehicles and whether they think further raise safety concerns for consumers, as hacker
AVs will provide comfort. They found out that 72% of the activities will target the core network in attempting to
participants were not comfortable with the liability of AVs access all connected AVs (Kennedy 2017). Given the
in case of an accident. According to the reviewed literature degree of connectivity and the advanced level of technol-
liability can be considered as a factor that will encourage in ogy of AVs, it is critical that developers and countries
adopting autonomous driving. immunize their networks against cyberattacks (Morando
et al. 2018). Furthermore, Fagnant and Kockelman (2015)
2.3.3.3 Privacy Since these vehicles will be automated imply in their research that AV drivers are fearful of the
and in control of all the information about the occupant, extent to which their cars are electronically safeguarded.
maintaining the privacy of occupants, their whereabouts Threats from terrorist organizations, hostile nations,
and where they are heading will be a key factor. The ability cybersecurity hackers, dissatisfied employees and other
to maintain and control privacy should be ensured by the sources pose dangers and are potential causes for scenarios
manufacturers of AVs, and policymakers should drive this of traffic disruption and disorder. Moreover, since AV
by enacting appropriate laws. Collingwood (2017), argues security systems constitute access points to the whole
that privacy matters are a great concern, since the vehicle system, creating an entire security system for AVs is
companies and software providers will hold all the personal imperative to their successful adoption. Likewise, Linkov
information, a situation vehicle occupant may not be et al. (2019), wrote in their research that there are several
pleased with. Where occupants have been, where they are techniques to initiate an AV cyberattack. They gave an
going and their driving habits will all be recorded, and this example on cyberattacks which involves targeting the
data will need to be maintained by the companies to protect software which manage the information and infrastructure
users’ privacy (Fagnant and Kockelman 2015). AV’s are as well as physical attack on the hardware. An attack on
more dependent on high definition maps, sensors and other remote-less entry can make the user locked inside the
tools, from which information can be gathered and vehicles. When the tire-pressure systems are attacked, the
enhanced to ensure the safety of the vehicle’s operations as information conveyed can be wrong and air pressure can be
Taeihagh and Lim (2019), observed. Although there are hidden. The attacker can make the vehicle slow down by
concerns about who is managing this information and how signaling the sensor to a steep gradient.
it is utilized, these concerns about information safety and As the goal of AV is the reduction of road accidents
privacy are still unresolved (Anderson et al. 2016; Boeglin because of human error, although humans are the main
2015). Multiple issues regarding informational privacy threats to AVs. Sheehan et al. (2019), stated that the cre-
remain unclear, including the exact reasons why informa- ators of technologies unknowingly create systems which
tion is being collected, the types of information being are vulnerable to attacks. The risk of cybercrime is big
collected (Gurumurthy and Kockelman 2020), accessibility concern to insurers, regulators and policy-makers which
to the information and the permissible duration of infor- requires risk assessment method. Also, the changing nature
mation storage (Glancy 2012). of risks needs to be adapted in order to an AV cyber-risk
Besides, Bloom et al. (2017), did a study on privacy and classification system to be effective. Models that are based
they conducted a survey of 302 participants. The partici- on historical data are not capable of predicting environment
pants were found to be comfortable with primary autono- when there is a varied data. Less empirical evidence is
mous features like data collection, storage and analysis) as available on cyber-attacks on AV since the technology is
compared to secondary uses like recognition and tracking still evolving. Still, the analysis of evolution of software
of vehicles. Least discomfort was found 16% with privacy vulnerabilities as well as information adaptation empowers
123
risk analysis for vehicle manufacturers, suppliers and identifying the safety and security aspect of AV. Some
insurance companies. As discussed earlier cybersecurity users prefer sporty driving with high speed whereas some
can be considered as a factor that will support in adopting prefer slower driving in a relaxed mood. The parameters of
autonomous driving. AVs performance like acceleration, distance with other
vehicles etc., will need to be adjusted with specific users to
2.3.4 User acceptance ensure satisfaction. Moreover, Khan (2017), gave some
elements that will influence consumer acceptance first, self-
User acceptance is an important matter for the utilization of perceived knowledge of the Technology which means how
AVs. Since the technology is developed to serve people, if well consumer knew about AVs as a technology. Second,
it is rejected by users the AV will be considered a failure. general view of the technology and meant by that is
The following sections show consumer acceptance, mar- specifically the consumer opinion on the technology of
keting and advertising, cost of AVs and trust are being AVs. Third, perceived safety and trust as there are some
evaluated in assessing user acceptance of autonomous many concerns on how safe will AVs be and is it trustable.
driving. Fourth, comfort with the technology it is somehow similar
like trust but what meant here is the consumer happy to use
2.3.4.1 Consumer acceptance Consumer acceptance is this technology daily. Fifth, pleasure of driving as some
considered an important factor that should be addressed to consumer enjoy driving and this pleasure will fade. Sixth,
implement AVs successfully. According to Cho and Jung social influences as stated meant that consumer are will to
(2018), the perception of AVs varies in different countries accept this technology as they see more people using it.
because of the varying backgrounds, technological aware- Seventh, gender as expect that male would accept this
ness and social interactions of people. It is important to technology more than female since males usually willing to
understand consumers’ knowledge and perception of try new technologies. Eighth, age as this element could
autonomous driving with regard to different cultures and to affect the acceptance of AVs were if the consumer is
compare these across cultures. As Zmud and Sener (2017), younger is more likely to accept this kind of technology.
cite the case of 1980, when information technology was Also, Schoettle and Sivak (2016), did a survey of 618
developed but was not successfully introduced into busi- respondents to study several issues regarding drivers’ pref-
ness and homes because consumers did not accept this erences to control the vehicles as well as having AV or
technology back then, to argue that new vehicle tech- conventional vehicles. It was found that most preference was
nologies will not provide any benefit to users until they are given to no-self driving 45.8%, then partially self-driving
accepted and used. In the context of self-driving vehicles, 38.7% and completely self-driving being the least preferred
the possible benefits, including improved safety, improved 15.5%. In addition, for majority 59.1% preferred to get
air quality, and reduced congestion, cannot be attained until notification of taking control of a partially self-driving
AVs are welcomed and used by drivers. Proper strategies vehicle through sound, vibration and visuals. Based on the
such as communication, education and training to change discussion above consumer acceptance can be considered as
perceptions should be deployed to create acceptance a factor that will help in adopting autonomous driving.
among people.
It is believed that the AVs will bring great economic 2.3.4.2 Marketing and advertising When any new tech-
benefit through safety and productivity gains. However, nology is released, marketing and advertising are needed to
Sener and Zmud (2019), explained that the gains will not make people familiar with the technology and with how
be achieved until the AVs are implemented on large levels they will benefit from it. Since AVs are considered a rad-
and are adopted by large proportion of drivers. The con- ical technology, marketing and advertising are particularly
sumer demand will affect the pace of market development important factors in fostering user acceptance. Talebian
which can make the AVs truly transformative event. The and Mishra (2018) argue that marketing and advertising
future acceptance and use are still not certain. The number have the potential to make the audience more familiar with
of car ownership can change with either more people AVs and change their perceptions so they will accept the
owning the cars or lesser people. Also, the living condi- new technology and new traffic regime. The frequency
tions can be changed with either more people living from with which AV usage is advertised will affect people’s
downtown or more people living near downtown. thinking patterns and can lead them to adopt AVs. Mar-
In addition, Kuderer et al. (2015), wrote in their research keting and advertising strategies should be prepared
that AVs need to be safe and reliable for users to accept keeping in mind distinctive characteristics of the audience,
them easily. The users should have a comfortable experi- since consumers have different levels of acceptance (Leicht
ence with AVs in order to continue or repeat use of AVs. et al. 2018). In fact, there is no universal understanding of
However, the use perception will play a major role in AVs and their applications, and Cho and Jung (2018)
123
believe that a diversity of perceptions will arise once the it difficult for masses to adopt AVs on a larger scale. In
AV is introduced in the market and consumers are aware of addition, Davidson and Spinoulas (2015), mentioned in
its features. their research that AVs provide a promising aspect in safe
Likewise, Davidson and Spinoulas (2015), explained and lawful driving with decreased accidents which will
that cost, comfort and safety are three major concerns for have reduced insurance costs. This will have negative
AV users. In order to make AVs implement on a large impact on insurance industry as well as vehicle repair
scale, the costs of AVs need to be reduced to enable people industries since there will be lesser need of insurance and
from all classes to buy them. This will eventually happen car repair. Three main components of costs need to be
where more companies start offering and marketing AVs considered; the value of time spent on travelling; the cost
and there will be increased competition leading to price of maintaining and operating the vehicle and other costs
drop. Besides, economies of scale will also lead decrease in like parking and tolls.
prices of AVs. The safety aspect of AVs should be Litman (2017), wrote in his research that AVs require
addressed since users will be less-forgiving towards advanced technologies and equipment which will increase
machine-error compared to human error in the instance of vehicle prices as well as annual maintenance and update
any accident. This will make the first marketing of AVs costs. For example, the costs of optional features like
difficult since the safety concerns of the public will still be remote starting and top view camera increase the vehicle
unaddressed making them conservative in their decisions to costs by more than USD 5000. In order to avoid the failures
buy AVs. The early AVs may thus perform very reluctantly that could be deadly, the AVs will need specialist’s
on slower speed making the performance of AVs affected. involvement to add further performance increasing com-
The marketer of AVs will need to face higher challenges of ponents which will increase costs further. This suggests
convincing the public on the safety and security aspect of that Level 4 and 5 AVs will be extremely costly because of
the AVs. Based on the reviewed literature marketing and the addition of such aspects and features and also, the
advertising can be considered as a factor that will support annual services cost and maintenance costs it will take
in adopting autonomous driving. around one to three decades for AVs to reduce their prices
based on various reasons like competition.
2.3.4.3 Cost of AVs Usually new technology is costly Bansal et al. (2016), also provide an estimate of USD
and this could affect the user acceptance to this technology. 7253 which an average user will be willing to pay for an
The same applies to AVs, which are expected to be AV technology with additional USD 5551 and USD 14,589
expensive once they are available. This means the AV will for Level 4 and Level 5 automation technology. In addi-
be unaffordable for those with an average income, which in tion, Bansal et al. (2016), identify the estimate of USD
any country means most citizens. Thus, the cost of an AV 5000 for adding any autonomous feature in today’s con-
is an important factor to be considered. Fagnant and ventional vehicle. On the other hand, Hörl et al. (2016),
Kockelman (2015) claim that there is uncertainty about the provided an estimate of USD 0.42 to USD 0.49 cost for
cost of AVs and their operational expenses. Large-scale travelling per mile on AV which is very competitive
production and mass consumer availability come under compared to conventional vehicle. Furthermore, Hörl et al.
threat with rises in the cost of production. The cost raised (2016), state that the cost of shared AV with 2 passengers
due to extra parts fixed to enhance the effectiveness and will be competitive with mass transport by 2035. The cost
improvements in safety. But on the other hand, AVs will be of USD 0.85 per mile and valuing travel time losses of 30%
highly valued as compared to manually driven cars, which of today’s value (Chen and Kockelman 2016) becomes
might result in fewer people purchasing AVs. Puylaert equal to AV taxi mode share of 27%.
et al. (2018) also identify direct and indirect costs associ- Furthermore, Medina-Tapia and Robusté (2019), pre-
ated with AVs, including energy costs, insurance costs, trip dicted in their research the direct and indirect effects of
length, travel times, congestion, safety and travel time connected AVs. The direct effects include less street supply
reliability. There will also be decreased costs, such as need for accommodating the traffic and decrease in traffic
lower insurance costs and less maintenance needed (Lit- congestion by 30%. The indirect effects will include
man 2014). decrease of 20% in value of travel time by reduction of
According to Hörl et al. (2016), the users with higher total cost, high induced demand by 50% and effect of
interest in technology will be the first adopters of AVs future scenario on vehicle kilometers. The increases and
since it will be easier to convince them of the new tech- decreases in costs will need to be compared to determine
nology and how it can change the conventional traffic and the overall effect. As discussed above cost of AV’s can be
improve the society. The cost of owning and maintaining considered as a factor that will impact in adopting auton-
the AVs will also need to be considered by early marketers omous driving.
since the starting costs is expected to be very high making
123
2.3.4.4 Trust To accept a new technology, a user must The findings for this research were factors that are
first trust it, and one of the bigger challenges to address divided into four categories. The first category is technol-
with AVs is the issue of trust (Adnan et al. 2018). In the ogy readiness, which contains three factors: vehicle tech-
case of AVs, if users are convinced that this technology nology, safety and ethics. The second category is
will not harm them, naturally they will accept it. Thus, trust infrastructure readiness, which encompasses three factors:
is an important factor in the successful adaptation of AVs. communication, the technology of roads and traffic signs
Abraham et al. (2017) explain that AVs have the potential and the cost of infrastructure. The third category is legal
to enhance mobility once people trust them enough to readiness, and it comprises four factors: policy and regu-
adopt them. Such trust, however, must be developed over lation, liability, privacy, and cybersecurity. Finally, the
time, and all stakeholders will need to work to create trust fourth category is user acceptance, which includes four
among users. These users will be transitioning from con- factors: consumer acceptance, marketing and advertising,
ventional driving, where they have always been in control, cost of AVs and trust.
and thus trusting a driverless vehicle will require long-term Adopting the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen
education and tactics to change minds. AVs’ success will 1991) (Fig. 2). The findings were presented in a graphical
depend on how fully people can trust them and on how model that shows the relationship of the factors with their
people choose to use and interact with them and the associated readiness categories in Fig. 3.
ensuing safety risk (Dixit et al. 2016). Choi and Ji (2015),
also indicate that user perceptions need to be changed in
such a way as to create trust in the new traffic regime, 4 Discussion
which can be done by educating them with the new tech-
nology and providing them enough control to exert when This paper conducted a systematic literature review to
they need it. identify the factors for the adoption of autonomous driving,
Similarly, Zmud et al. (2016), concluded in their and this knowledge don’t have a geographical constrains
research that some respondents considered using AVs same therefore it can be used anywhere around the world. The
as using public transit. The perception was that self-driving literature review provides a list of articles that were ana-
vehicles would be easier and comfortable than traditional lyzed to identify factors that would be critical to the suc-
transport. There is an accepted perception that AVs will not cess of an effort to adopt AVs on a mass level. The
be allowed until they are tested safe. The top reason of lack literature was found to be diverse on the topic of AVs, and
of adoption will be lack of trust in the technology. Based the data were categorized to extract the factors that must be
on the discussion earlier trust can be considered as a factor considered when implementing mass adoption of AVs.
that will affect in adopting autonomous driving. The factors were grouped into four readiness categories,
In summary, the literature review covered AV’s and listed here with their constituent factors as identified from
their evolution, key components in AV classification and the literature: technology (vehicle technology, safety and
factors that influence the adoption of autonomous driving. ethics), infrastructure (communication, technology of roads
The factors identified in the literature categorized and and traffic signs and cost of infrastructure), law (policy and
summarized in Table 1: regulations, liability, privacy and cybersecurity) and user
acceptance (consumer acceptance, marketing and adver-
tising, cost of AVs and trust).
3 Findings The technology readiness category includes factors such
as vehicle technology, safety and ethics. Since technology
This section presents the findings of the literature review of is the basis on which AVs are developed, these factors need
this research conducted in Sect. 2, which is presented in to be effectively addressed in the implementation of AVs.
Table 2. As been explained earlier in the literature review vehicle
Table 1 Factors identified from the literature review

Category Factors
Technology readiness Vehicle technology, safety, ethics

Infrastructure readiness Communication, the technology of reads and traffic signs, cost of infrastructure
Legal readiness Policy and regulation, liability, privacy, cybersecurity
User acceptance Consumer acceptance, marketing and advertising, cost of AV, trust
123
ethics is considered when programming the AVs likewise,

Attitude towards
Skeete (2018), gave an ethical issue on how drivers should
prevent unavoidable collisions.
Subjective
The infrastructure readiness category includes factors
Intention Behavior
such as communication, technology of roads and traffic
signs and the cost of infrastructure. The existing literature
Perceived is clear that new infrastructure needs to be built to meet the
Behavioral new requirements of AVs, and as this is a costly under-
taking, the availability of funding is an essential factor in
Fig. 2 Theory of planned behavior the success of AVs. Referring back to Sect. 2 communi-
cation is needed to ensure capable vehicle to vehicle and
technology is very important factor which consists of many vehicle to infrastructure communication so this can
components like sensors, radar, GPS and LIDAR also, Shi increase safety and also, could avoid collisions (Plathottam
et al. (2017), confirms this information. While, AVs is and Ranganathan 2018). Furthermore, technology of roads
expected be safer than manual vehicles, AVs need to and traffic signs need to have some upgrades to be com-
identify the current state of vehicle as well the environment patible with AVs (Faisal et al. 2019). Moreover, as referred
to give the safety functions (Rhiu et al. 2015). Moreover, to Duarte and Ratti (2018), cost of infrastructure is
Fig. 3 Autonomous driving

factors conceptual model Vehicle Technology
Technology
Safety
Readiness
Ethics
Communicaon
Development of road Infrastructure

and traﬃc signs Readiness
Cost of Infrastructure Adopng

Autonomous
Driving
Policy & regulaons
Liability Legal
Readiness
Privacy
Cyber Security
Consumer
Acceptance
User
Markeng &
Acceptance
Adversing
Cost of Autonomous
Vehicles
Trust
123
Table 2 Factors as found in the literature

No Category Factor References
1 Technology readiness Vehicle technology Güzel (2013)

Bimbraw (2015)
Fagnant et al. (2015)
Stephan et al. (2016)
Jiménez et al. (2016)
Agunbiade et al. (2016)
Ramanujam (2017)
Tian et al. (2018)
Kuutti et al. (2018)
Van Brummelen et al. (2018)
Mohamed et al. (2018)
Ayawli et al. (2018)
Guo et al. (2019)
Zheng et al. (2019)
Barnard et al. (2019)
Safety Koopman and Wagner 2017)
O’Kelly et al. (2017)
Pek et al. (2017)
Deb et al. (2017)
Morando et al. (2018)
Schwammberger 2018)
Schwarting et al. (2018)
Pek and Althoff (2019)
Taeihagh and Lim (2019)
Ethics Fried (2012)
Goodall (2016)
Gogoll and Müller (2017)
Johnson (2017)
Adnan et al. (2018)
Cunneen et al. (2020)
Mordue et al. 2020)
2 Infrastructure readiness Communication Xargay et al. (2012)
Litman 2014)
Hörl et al. (2016)
Daziano et al. 2017)
Engelman et al. (2017)
Ge et al. (2018)
Adegoke et al. (2019)
Technology of roads and traffic signs Levin and Boyles 2015)
Levin et al. (2016)
Zohdy and Rakha (2016)
Chen et al. (2016)
Sparrow and Howard (2017)
Tokody et al. (2018)
Lengyel and Szalay (2018)
Duarte and Ratti (2018)
Latham and Nattrass (2019)
Steyn and Maina (2019)
123
Table 2 continued
No Category Factor References
Namazi et al. (2019)
Cost of infrastructure Flemming et al. (2015)
Chen et al. (2016)
Jadaan et al. (2017)
Lytrivis et al. (2018)
3 Legal readiness Policy and regulation Bansal and Kockelman (2017)
Barabás et al. (2017)
Faisal et al. (2019)
Nikitas et al. (2019)
Liability Marchant and Lindor (2012)
Bloom et al. (2017)
Geistfeld (2017)
Riehl (2018)
Privacy Glancy (2012)
Boeglin (2015)
Fagnant and Kockelman (2015), Anderson et al. (2016)
Bloom et al. (2017)
Collingwood (2017)
Gurumurthy and Kockelman (2020)
Cybersecurity Fagnant and Kockelman (2015)
Kennedy (2017)
Morando et al. (2018)
Sheehan et al. (2019)
Linkov et al. (2019)
4 User acceptance Consumer acceptance Kuderer et al. (2015)
Schoettle and Sivak (2016)
Zmud and Sener (2017)
Khan (2017)
Cho and Jung (2018)
Sener and Zmud (2019)
Marketing and advertising Davidson and Spinoulas (2015)
Talebian and Mishra (2018)
Leicht et al. (2018)
Cho and Jung (2018)
Cost of AVs Davidson and Spinoulas (2015)
Fagnant and Kockelman (2015)
Hörl et al. (2016)
Litman (2017)
Puylaert et al. (2018)
Medina-Tapia and Robusté (2019)
Trust Choi and Ji (2015)
Zmud et al. (2016)
Dixit et al. (2016)
Abraham et al. (2017)
Adnan et al. (2018)
123
measured for example, the costs involved in infrastructure attention. It is noted that all stakeholders must play their
upgrades will be offset by positive benefits offered by AVs. roles in addressing these factors and making the adoption
The third category is laws, which include factors such as of AVs a success.
to policy and regulation, liability, privacy and cybersecu- To develop effective strategies to address each factor,
rity. Since current traffic laws were made based on con- the stakeholders need to understand the value of each factor
ventional vehicles, AVs require new laws that are and how it can affect the adoption process. The articles
suitable for the new situation Riehl (2018), also, stated that yielded from the databases were found to discuss how these
there are initial policy and regulation for testing AVs in the factors can be approached to create a supportive environ-
streets. On the other hand, liability could shift from the ment before the mass adoption of AVs. The author also
driver to the manufacturer of the AVs in case of an accident recommends future research on these four categories and
which can reduce the pace of development of AVs (Vel- their 14 factors to provide additional information on how
linga 2017). Moreover, as explained in Sect. 2, there are the government can adopt autonomous driving. In addition,
some privacy issues in adopting AVs and some concerns the author recommends further study of the relationship
related to cybersecurity Taeihagh and Lim (2019), raised between the factors and their impact on the adaptation of
some questions on informational privacy remain uncertain autonomous driving.
as well as the reason and types of the information collec-
tion. They also, argued that cybersecurity law needs
anonymization of all information including customer con-
sent as well as being transparent about the purpose and References
method of data collection.
Abraham H, Lee C, Brady S, Fitzgerald C, Mehler B, Reimer B,
The last category of factors effecting the implementa- Coughlin JF (2017) Autonomous vehicles and alternatives to
tion of AVs is user acceptance. Factors included in this driving: trust, preferences, and effects of age. In: Proceedings of
category are consumer acceptance, marketing and adver- the transportation research board 96th annual meeting (TRB’17)
tising, cost of AVs and trust. As explained earlier since the Adegoke EI, Zidane J, Kampert E, Ford CR, Birrell SA, Higgins MD
(2019) Infrastructure Wi-Fi for connected autonomous vehicle
adoption of AVs would entail more extensive involvement positioning: a review of the state-of-the-art. Veh Commun
of the public, the automobile industry and the policy- 20:100185
makers, with the public being the end user, public will- Adnan N, Nordin SM, bin Bahruddin, MA, Ali M (2018) How trust
ingness and readiness to adopt the changes make consumer can drive forward the user acceptance to the technology? In-
vehicle technology for autonomous vehicle. Transp Res Part A
acceptance one of the most important factors influencing Policy Pract 118:819–836
the adoption of AVs also, Leicht et al. (2018), mentioned Agunbiade YO., Dehinbo JO, Zuva T, Akanbi AK (2016) Road
these points. Moreover, marketing and advertising is detection technique using filters with application to autonomous
compulsory to make the people aware of AVs and how can driving system. arXiv preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.05878
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum
manufacturers grab the attention of the people likewise, Decis Process 50(2):179–221
Khan (2017), wrote that AV manufacturers should make Al-Khouri AM (2012) eGovernment strategies the case of the United
the public more aware of the advantages of AVs through Arab Emirates (UAE). Eur J ePractice 17:126–150
proper campaigns since many individuals do not have well Anderson JM, Nidhi K, Stanley KD, Sorensen P, Samaras C,
Oluwatola OA (2016) Autonomous vehicle technology: a guide
enough knowledge about these benefits. Furthermore, the for policymakers. Rand Corporation, Monica
author mentioned cost of AVs which consists of many Ayawli BBK, Chellali R, Appiah AY, Kyeremeh F (2018) An
elements like, vehicle initial cost, operational cost, main- overview of nature-inspired, conventional, and hybrid methods
tenance cost and much more and theses costs could effect of autonomous vehicle path planning. J Adv Transp 2018:1–27
Bagloee SA, Tavana M, Asadi M, Oliver T (2016) Autonomous
on purchasing AVs. Bösch et al. (2018), similarly declared vehicles: challenges, opportunities, and future implications for
several types costs related to AVs. Additionally, as men- transportation policies. J Mod Transp 24(4):284–303
tioned in Sect. 2 the end user should trust AVs in order to Bansal P, Kockelman KM (2017) Forecasting Americans’ long-term
use it also, Rhiu et al. (2015), justified that user technology adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies.
Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 95:49–63
adoption is related to trust and user behavioral intentions. Bansal P, Kockelman KM, Singh A (2016) Assessing public opinions
of and interest in new vehicle technologies: an Austin perspec-
tive. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 67:1–14
5 Conclusion and further research Barabás I, Todoruţ A, Cordoş N, Molea A (2017) Current challenges
in autonomous driving. In: IOP conference series: materials
science and engineering, vol 252, no. 1. IOP Publishing,
It is found that adoption and implementation of AVs is a p 012096
complex process involving a variety of key factors. The Barnard M, Hitt R, Norton M, Lee YC (2019) Posing questions and
categories of the factors will help practitioners and policy suggestions: autonomous vehicles & climate change. In:
Proceedings of the... international driving symposium on human
implementation teams to identify the key areas that need
123
factors in driver assessment, training and vehicle design, vol Duarte F, Ratti C (2018) The impact of autonomous vehicles on
2019. University of Iowa Public Policy Center, pp 308–313 cities: a review. J Urban Technol 25(4):3–18
Bimbraw K (2015) Autonomous cars: past, present and future a Engelman GH, Miller AM, Stephenson RL, Tellis L, Zwicky TD
review of the developments in the last century, the present (2017) U.S. Patent No. 9,666,069. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent
scenario and the expected future of autonomous vehicle and Trademark Office
technology. In: 2015 12th international conference on informat- Fagnant DJ, Kockelman K (2015) Preparing a nation for autonomous
ics in control, automation and robotics (ICINCO), vol 1. IEEE, vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations.
pp 191–198 Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 77:167–181
Bloom C, Tan J, Ramjohn J, Bauer L (2017) Self-driving cars and Fagnant DJ, Kockelman KM, Bansal P (2015) Operations of shared
data collection: Privacy perceptions of networked autonomous autonomous vehicle fleet for Austin, Texas, market. Transp Res
vehicles. In: Thirteenth symposium on usable privacy and Rec 2563(1):98–106
security ({SOUPS} 2017, pp 357–375 Faisal A, Yigitcanlar T, Kamruzzaman M, Currie G (2019) Under-
Boeglin J (2015) The costs of self-driving cars: reconciling freedom standing autonomous vehicles: a systematic literature review on
and privacy with tort liability in autonomous vehicle regulation. capability, impact, planning and policy. J Transp Land Use
Yale J Law Technol 17:171 12(1):45–72
Bösch PM, Becker F, Becker H, Axhausen KW (2018) Cost-based Flemming B, Gill V, Godsmark P, Kirk B (2015) Automated vehicles:
analysis of autonomous mobility services. Transp Policy the coming of the next disruptive technology. In: The Confer-
64:76–91 ence Board of Canada; Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa,
Brenner W, Herrmann A (2018) An overview of technology, benefits ON, Canada
and impact of automated and autonomous driving on the Fried BH (2012) What does matter? The case for killing the trolley
automotive industry. In: Linnhoff-Popien C, Schneider R, problem (or letting it die). Philos Q 62(248):505–529
Zaddach M (eds) Digital marketplaces unleashed. Springer, Ge IJ, Avedisov SS, He CR, Qin WB, Sadeghpour M, Orosz G (2018)
Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 427–442 Experimental validation of connected automated vehicle design
Brereton P, Kitchenham BA, Budgen D, Turner M, Khalil M (2007) among human-driven vehicles. Transp Res Part C Emerg
Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process Technol 91:335–352
within the software engineering domain. J Syst Softw Geistfeld MA (2017) A roadmap for autonomous vehicles: state tort
80(4):571–583 liability, automobile insurance, and federal safety regulation.
Campbell M, Egerstedt M, How JP, Murray RM (2010) Autonomous Calif Law Rev 105:1611
driving in urban environments: approaches, lessons and chal- Glancy DJ (2012) Privacy in autonomous vehicles. Santa Clara Law
lenges. Philos Trans R Soc Math Phys Eng Sci Rev 52:1171
368(1928):4649–4672 Goel P, Goudar RH, Malik R, Singh R, Singh NK (2017) Localization
Chen TD, Kockelman KM (2016) Management of a shared based intelligent traffic management system. Int J Syst Assur
autonomous electric vehicle fleet: implications of pricing Eng Manag 8(1):90–98
schemes. Transp Res Rec 2572(1):37–46 Gogoll J, Müller JF (2017) Autonomous cars: in favor of a mandatory
Chen TD, Kockelman KM, Hanna JP (2016) Operations of a shared, ethics setting. Sci Eng Ethics 23(3):681–700
autonomous, electric vehicle fleet: implications of vehicle & Goodall NJ (2016) Away from trolley problems and toward risk
charging infrastructure decisions. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract management. Appl Artif Intell 30(8):810–821
94:243–254 Guo H, Cao D, Chen H, Sun Z, Hu Y (2019) Model predictive path
Cho E, Jung Y (2018) Consumers’ understanding of autonomous following control for autonomous cars considering a measurable
driving. Inf Technol People 31(5):1035–1046 disturbance: implementation, testing, and verification. Mech Syst
Choi JK, Ji YG (2015) Investigating the importance of trust on Signal Process 118:41–60
adopting an autonomous vehicle. Int J Hum Comput Interact Gurumurthy KM, Kockelman KM (2020) Modeling Americans’
31(10):692–702 autonomous vehicle preferences: a focus on dynamic ride-
Collingwood L (2017) Privacy implications and liability issues of sharing, privacy & long-distance mode choices. Technol Fore-
autonomous vehicles. Inf Commun Technol Law 26(1):32–45 cast Soc Change 150:119792
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB (1997) Systematic reviews: Güzel MS (2013) Autonomous vehicle navigation using vision and
synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med mapless strategies: a survey. Adv Mech Eng 5:234747
126(5):376–380 Helle P, Schamai W, Strobel C (2016) Testing of autonomous
Cunneen M, Mullins M, Murphy F, Shannon D, Furxhi I, Ryan C systems—challenges and current state-of-the-art. In: INCOSE
(2020) Autonomous vehicles and avoiding the trolley (dilemma): international symposium, vol 26, no. 1, pp 571–584
vehicle perception, classification, and the challenges of framing Hörl S, Ciari F, Axhausen KW (2016) Recent perspectives on the
decision ethics. Cybern Syst 51(1):59–80 impact of autonomous vehicles. In: Arbeitsberichte Verkehrs-
Davidson P, Spinoulas A (2015) Autonomous vehicles: what could und Raumplanung, vol 1216
this mean for the future of transport. In: Australian Institute of Jadaan K, Zeater S, Abukhalil Y (2017) Connected vehicles: an
Traffic Planning and Management (AITPM) National Confer- innovative transport technology. Procedia Eng 187:641–648
ence, Brisbane, Queensland Jiménez F, Clavijo M, Naranjo JE, Gómez Ó (2016) Improving the
Daziano RA, Sarrias M, Leard B (2017) Are consumers willing to pay lane reference detection for autonomous road vehicle control.
to let cars drive for them? Analyzing response to autonomous J Sens 2016:1–13
vehicles. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 78:150–164 Johnson C (2017) Readiness of the road network for connected and
Deb S, Strawderman L, Carruth DW, DuBien J, Smith B, Garrison autonomous vehicles. RAC Foundation, London
TM (2017) Development and validation of a questionnaire to Khan A (2017) Modelling human factors for advanced driving
assess pedestrian receptivity toward fully autonomous vehicles. assistance system design. In: Stanton N, Landry S, Di Bucchi-
Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 84:178–195 anico G, Vallicelli A (eds) Advances in human aspects of
Dixit VV, Chand S, Nair DJ (2016) Autonomous vehicles: disen- transportation, vol 484. Springer, Cham, pp 3–14
gagements, accidents and reaction times. PLoS ONE
11(12):e0168054
123
Karsh BT (2004) Beyond usability: designing effective technology Morando MM, Tian Q, Truong LT, Vu HL (2018) Studying the safety
implementation systems to promote patient safety. BMJ Qual Saf impact of autonomous vehicles using simulation-based surrogate
13(5):388–394 safety measures. J Adv Transp 2018:1–11
Kennedy C (2017) New threats to vehicle safety: how cybersecurity Mordue G, Yeung A, Wu F (2020) The looming challenges of
policy will shape the future of autonomous vehicles. Michigan regulating high level autonomous vehicles. Transp Res Part A
Telecommun Technol Law Rev 23:343 Policy Pract 132:174–187
Koopman P, Wagner M (2017) Autonomous vehicle safety: an Namazi E, Li J, Lu C (2019) Intelligent intersection management
interdisciplinary challenge. IEEE Intell Transp Syst Mag systems considering autonomous vehicles: a systematic literature
9(1):90–96 review. IEEE Access 7:91946–91965
KPMG (2018) Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index: assessing Nikitas A, Njoya ET, Dani S (2019) Examining the myths of
countries openness and preparedness for autonomous vehicles, connected and autonomous vehicles: analysing the pathway to a
vol 60 driverless mobility paradigm. Int J Automot Technol Manage
Kuderer M, Gulati S, Burgard W (2015) Learning driving styles for 19(1–2):10–30
autonomous vehicles from demonstration. In: 2015 IEEE O’Kelly M, Abbas H, Mangharam R (2017) Computer-aided design
international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). for safe autonomous vehicles. In: 2017 resilience week (RWS).
IEEE, pp 2641–2646 IEEE, pp 90–96
Kuutti S, Fallah S, Katsaros K, Dianati M, Mccullough F, Mouzakitis Oliveira CMD, De Mello A, Bandeira R, Vasconcelos Goes G,
A (2018) A survey of the state-of-the-art localization techniques Schmitz Gonçalves DN, D’Agosto MDA (2017) Sustainable
and their potentials for autonomous vehicle applications. IEEE vehicles-based alternatives in last mile distribution of urban
Internet Things J 5(2):829–846 freight transport: A systematic literature review. Sustainability
Latham A, Nattrass M (2019) Autonomous vehicles, car-dominated 9(8):1324
environments, and cycling: using an ethnography of infrastruc- Pandey P, Shukla A, Tiwari R (2018) Three-dimensional path
ture to reflect on the prospects of a new transportation planning for unmanned aerial vehicles using glowworm swarm
technology. J Transp Geogr 81:102539 optimization algorithm. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag
Leicht T, Chtourou A, Youssef KB (2018) Consumer innovativeness 9(4):836–852
and intentioned autonomous car adoption. J High Technol Parry IW, Walls M, Harrington W (2007) Automobile externalities
Manag Res 29(1):1–11 and policies. J Econ Lit 45(2):373–399
Lengyel H, Szalay Z (2018) Traffic sign anomalies and their effects to Pek C, Althoff M (2019) Ensuring motion safety of autonomous
the highly automated and autonomous vehicles. In: 35th vehicles through online fail-safe verification. In; Robotics:
international colloquium on advanced manufacturing and repair science and systems-pioneers workshop
technologies in vehicle industry, pp 193–204 Pek C, Zahn P, Althoff M (2017) Verifying the safety of lane change
Levin MW, Boyles SD (2015) Intersection auctions and reservation- maneuvers of self-driving vehicles based on formalized traffic
based control in dynamic traffic assignment. Transp Res Rec rules. In: 2017 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE,
2497(1):35–44 pp 1477–1483
Levin MW, Boyles SD, Patel R (2016) Paradoxes of reservation- Pendleton SD, Andersen H, Du X, Shen X, Meghjani M, Eng YH,
based intersection controls in traffic networks. Transp Res Part A Ang MH (2017) Perception, planning, control, and coordination
Policy Pract 90:14–25 for autonomous vehicles. Machines 5(1):6
Link H, Nash C, Ricci A, Shires J (2016) A generalized approach for Plathottam SJ, Ranganathan P (2018) Next generation distributed and
measuring the marginal social costs of road transport in Europe. networked autonomous vehicles. In: 2018 10th international
Int J Sustain Transp 10(2):105–119 conference on communication systems & networks (COMS-
Linkov V, Zámečnı́k P, Havlı́čková D, Pai CW (2019) Human factors NETS). IEEE, pp 577–582
in the cybersecurity of autonomous cars: trends in current Puylaert S, Snelder M, van Nes R, van Arem B (2018) Mobility
research. Front Psychol 10:995 impacts of early forms of automated driving—a system dynamic
Litman T (2014) Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions approach. Transp Policy 72:171–179
implications for transport planning. Victoria Transport Policy Ramanujam M (2017) U.S. Patent No. 9,805,519. Washington, DC:
Institute, Victoria U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Litman T (2017) Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions. Rhiu I, Kwon S, Bahn S, Yun MH, Yu W (2015) Research issues in
Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, p 28 smart vehicles and elderly drivers: a literature review. Int J Hum
Lytrivis P, Papanikolaou E, Amditis A, Dirnwöber M, Froetscher A, Comput Interact 31(10):635–666
Protzmann R, ... Kerschbaumer A (2018) Advances in road Riehl DA (2018) Car minus driver: autonomous vehicles driving
infrastructure, both physical and digital, for mixed vehicle traffic regulation, liability, and policy. Comput Internet Lawyer
flows. In: Proceedings of the 7th transport research Arena, 35(5):1–18
Vienna, Austria, 16–19 Rosique F, Navarro PJ, Fernández C, Padilla A (2019) A systematic
Marchant GE, Lindor RA (2012) The coming collision between review of perception system and simulators for autonomous
autonomous vehicles and the liability system. Santa Clara Law vehicles research. Sensors 19(3):648
Rev 52:1321 Ross PE (2014) Robot, you can drive my car. IEEE Spectr
Medina-Tapia M, Robusté F (2019) Implementation of connected and 51(6):60–90
autonomous vehicles in cities could have neutral effects on the SAE International (2018) Taxonomy and definitions for terms related
total travel time costs: modeling and analysis for a circular city. to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE
Sustainability 11(2):482 International, Washington
Mohamed A, Ren J, El-Gindy M, Lang H, Ouda AN (2018) Literature Schoettle B, Sivak M (2016). Motorists’ preferences for different
survey for autonomous vehicles: sensor fusion, computer vision, levels of vehicle automation: 2016. University of Michigan
system identification and fault tolerance. Int J Autom Control Sustainable Worldwide Transportation.
12(4):555–581 Schwammberger M (2018) Introducing Liveness into Multi-lane
Spatial Logic lane change controllers using UPPAAL. arXiv
preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.04346
123
Schwarting W, Alonso-Mora J, Rus D (2018) Planning and decision- the 40th international conference on software engineering,
making for autonomous vehicles. Ann Rev Control Robot Auton pp 303–314
Syst 1:187–210 Tokody D, Albini A, Ady L, Rajnai Z, Pongrácz F (2018) Safety and
Sener IN, Zmud J (2019) Chipping away at uncertainty: intent to use security through the design of autonomous intelligent vehicle
self-driving vehicles and the role of ride-hailing. Transp Plan systems and intelligent infrastructure in the smart city. Interdis-
Technol 42(7):645–661 cip Descr Complex Syst INDECS 16(3-A):384–396
Sheehan B, Murphy F, Mullins M, Ryan C (2019) Connected and Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for
autonomous vehicles: a cyber-risk classification framework. developing evidence-informed management knowledge by
Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 124:523–536 means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222
Shi W, Alawieh MB, Li X, Yu H (2017) Algorithm and hardware Urmson C (2016) Google self-driving car project. In: South by
implementation for visual perception system in autonomous Southwest (SXSW)
vehicle: a survey. Integration 59:148–156 Van Brummelen J, O’Brien M, Gruyer D, Najjaran H (2018)
Shladover SE (2018) Connected and automated vehicle systems: Autonomous vehicle perception: the technology of today and
introduction and overview. J Intell Transp Syst 22(3):190–200 tomorrow. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 89:384–406
Singh S, Galar D, Baglee D, Björling SE (2014) Self-maintenance Vellinga NE (2017) From the testing to the deployment of self-
techniques: a smart approach towards self-maintenance system. driving cars: legal challenges to policymakers on the road ahead.
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 5(1):75–83 Comput Law Secur Rev 33(6):847–863
Skeete JP (2018) Level 5 autonomy: the new face of disruption in Xargay E, Dobrokhodov V, Kaminer I, Pascoal AM, Hovakimyan N,
road transport. Technol Forecast Soc Change 134:22–34 Cao C (2012) Time-critical cooperative control of multiple
Sparrow R, Howard M (2017) When human beings are like drunk autonomous vehicles: robust distributed strategies for path-
robots: driverless vehicles, ethics, and the future of transport. following control and time-coordination over dynamic commu-
Transp Res Part C Emerg Technolog 80:206–215 nications networks. IEEE Control Syst Mag 32(5):49–73
Steininger M, Stephan C, Böhm C, Sauer F, Zink R (2016) Mapping Zheng L, Li B, Yang B, Song H, Lu Z (2019) Lane-level road
the surroundings as a requirement for autonomous driving. Acta network generation techniques for lane-level maps of autono-
Polytech CTU Proc 6:28–33 mous vehicles: a survey. Sustainability 11(16):4511
Steyn WJvdM, Maina JW (2019) Guidelines for the use of accelerated Zmud JP, Sener IN (2017) Towards an understanding of the travel
pavement testing data in autonomous vehicle infrastructure behavior impact of autonomous vehicles. Transp Res Procedia
research. J Traffic Transp Eng (English Edition) 6:273–281 25:2500–2519
Taeihagh A, Lim HSM (2019) Governing autonomous vehicles: Zmud J, Sener IN, Wagner J (2016) Self-driving vehicles: determi-
emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, nants of adoption and conditions of usage. Transp Res Rec
and industry risks. Transp Rev 39(1):103–128 2565(1):57–64
Talebian A, Mishra S (2018) Predicting the adoption of connected Zohdy IH, Rakha HA (2016) Intersection management via vehicle
autonomous vehicles: a new approach based on the theory of connectivity: the intersection cooperative adaptive cruise control
diffusion of innovations. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol system concept. J Intell Transp Syst 20(1):17–32
95:363–380
Thomé AMT, Scavarda LF, Scavarda AJ (2016) Conducting system-
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
atic literature review in operations management. Prod Plan
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Control 27(5):408–420
Tian Y, Pei K, Jana S, Ray B (2018) Deeptest: automated testing of
deep-neural-network-driven autonomous cars. In: Proceedings of
123

A Systematic Literature Review of The Factors Influencing The Adoption of Autonomous Driving

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Systematic Literature Review of The Factors Influencing The Adoption of Autonomous Driving

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Systematic Literature Review of The Factors Influencing The Adoption of Autonomous Driving

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

A systematic literature review of the factors influencing

Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil3

Received: 12 December 2019 / Revised: 3 February 2020

Pendleton et Shladover Ross (2014) Urmson Faisal et al. (2019)

al. (2017) (2018) (2016)

2010. Mercedes-Benz working

Fig. 1 Evolution of AVs over the years

Table 1 Factors identified from the literature review

Technology readiness Vehicle technology, safety, ethics

ethics is considered when programming the AVs likewise,

Fig. 3 Autonomous driving

Development of road Infrastructure

Cost of Infrastructure Adopng

Table 2 Factors as found in the literature

1 Technology readiness Vehicle technology Güzel (2013)

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.